Hon'ble Abhai Kumar, J.

1. The above referred revisions arise out of same impugned order are decided together.

2. By the impugned order dated 3.8.2007 passed by Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Court No.1), Mathura in Criminal Case No.4193 of 2006 (State vs. Satya Prakash and others) directed the charge to be framed against both the revisionist.

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revisionist that as per allegation, interpolations are being made in the certified copy issued by the High Court and, accordingly, Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is applicable in the matter and only the Court dealing with relevant papers, could have ordered for an inquiry and for filing the complaint case in this regard, which is not done in the present case. Hence, all the proceedings done in this regard is vitiated.

4. It is further submitted that Criminal Misc. Application No.2970 of 1994 as well as an application moved under Section 340 Cr.P.C. in the same proceeding is not available for perusal.

5. Sri Sudhir Mehrotra, Special Counsel appearing for High Court submitted that the provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is not applicable in the present case as forgery is committed outside the Court and the document has been filed after the forgery has been done.

6. From perusal of the F.I.R., it can be said that the forged document was being filed before the Session Court, Mathura and after the proper inquiry, the F.I.R. was directed to be lodged. This fact can be admitted as correct as the interpolations in the High Court's order is being made outside the Court and then it is filed in the Court.

7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Iqbal Singh Marwah vs. Meenakshi Marwah, 2005 Law Suit (SC) 486, the Court held as under:

"20. An enlarged interpretation to Section 195 (1) (b) (ii), whereby the bar created by the said provision would also operate where after commission of an act of forgery the document is subsequently produced in Court, is capable of great misuse. As pointed out in Sachida Nand Singh, after preparing a forged document or committing an act of forgery, a person may manage to get a proceeding instituted in any civil, criminal or revenue court, either by himself or through someone set up by him and simply file the document in the said proceeding. He would thus be protected from prosecution, either at the instance of a private party or the police until the Court, where the document has been filed, itself chooses to file a complaint. The litigation may be a prolonged one due to which the actual trial of such a person may be delayed indefinitely. Such an interpretation would he highly detrimental to the interest of society at large.

25. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the opinion that Sachida Nand Singh has been correctly decided and the view taken therein is the correct view. Section 195 (1) (b) (ii) Cr.P.C. would be attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court i.e. during the time when the document was in custodia legis."

8. In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel for the revisionist that compliance of Section 195 Cr.P.C. is not being made, cannot be accepted. As propounded above, there is no application of Section 195 Cr.P.C. in the present matter.

9. Submission that file of Criminal Misc. Application No.2970 of 1994 as well as order passed in the same proceeding upon an application under Section 340 Cr.P.C. is not available and he is not able to go through the record in spite of best efforts, also not liable to be accepted and has no bearing in the present matter.

10. Moreover, the submission in respect of efforts is only oral. Learned counsel for the revisionist could have very well moved inspection application in this regard. If so desire, he is free to do such.

11. By the impugned order, charge was framed and various grounds are being me